I have a large collection of 78 RPM records that I need to transcribe to digital format while they're still playable.

I'm in the process of acquiring cartridges with styli that will track above or below the worn areas, thus using areas previously untouched, so to speak. The smaller styli have the correct diameter to avoid the debris field at the bottom of the groove.

However I don't have a 78 RPM turntable. What I plan to do is play the records at 45 RPM while capturing them digitally and then using my DSP software to convert the speed from 45 RPM to 78.26, using a multiplication factor of 1.739.

The only thing I can see happening with this method is losing some of the bass. But there's not much bass (i.e., sub 120 Hz) in 78s anyway, so I don't see a problem there. Plus the tracking of the grooves should be improved not only due to the new area being used but also the slower playing speed.

I've experimented with few 78s using an old ceramic cartridge and the results were promising.

Any comments, cautions, or criticisms?

Nicolas?

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

I don't know much about this type of thing. but I do have a question about the quality of the transfer. Is your sample rate going to be high enough to avoid any compression artifacts when you increase the speed by an odd amount like that? That's the main thing I could see, again not really knowing much about it.

__________________
I'm not evil.
An evil person would do the things I think up.

Download Audacity - it's free download & comes with profiles for various record types, including 78's from memory. You might need a LAME encoder if you're planning on MP3 but personally I'd use FLAC files - no compression loss.

__________________
* Never doubt there is Truth; just doubt that you have it!

Thanks for the reply.

I'm using a really high sampling rate (96KHz). The reason for the "odd amount" is that's typical of what's needed to maintain the pitch. Having "perfect" pitch, even slight variations flat or sharp are easily detected and annoying. Some 78s were recording at different speeds and I adjust for correct pitch as needed.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

Thanks for replying. A check of my archives shows I downloaded Audacity in April, 2006 but didn't install it. Might give it a try.

Currently I'm using the latest version (v. 5.25 2007) of GoldWave shareware, which I bought back in 1999. It's been a fine performer for every task I've done with it.

Been MP3ing with Lame (and equivalents) since 1999, too. Just for web transfers though. For keepers the uncompressed files are the way to go.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

Thank you, Tog_ and Acolyte for your input.

I wound up getting a Shure M78S cartridge with a 2.5 mil diamond stylus. It tracks 78s quite well at 45 RPM and 2.5 grams.

It was advertised as a monaural cartridge, but a little research revealed it's mono due to jumpers on the signal pins. Removing these jumpers makes it a stereo cartridge. After finding this out, I ordered a Shure N70B 0.6 diamond stylus, which is for LPs. So now with a quick change-out I can play 33 1/3, 45, and 78 RPM records.

The Goldwave software does a fabulous job of changing the signal from 45 to 78 RPM. The sound is very smooth, accurate, and artifact-free, except for those artifacts from 78s that even the best noise-reduction applications can't remove.

A bit of web research showed that, as suspected, there's a slight bass roll-off doing this, but the higher frequencies are actually improved since the stylus tracks better at the lower speed. Plus the slight bass roll-off is easily compensated for using Goldwave's equalizer.

By shopping around, I was able to get the whole combo for under $45.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

Nice. Glad to hear it worked out for you.

__________________
I'm not evil.
An evil person would do the things I think up.

Wow! From who?
Would these work with LPs as well?

__________________
*

Yes. In fact the sound is much "sweeter" than what I was getting from my previous LP "reference" cartridge, an audio-technica ATN-211EP. So I'm now using the M78S with the N70B stylus to digitally preserve my LPs.

The M78S was from Amazon and went for $33.58 (free shipping and no sales tax). The N70B stylus was from Parts Express and was $8.40. The shipping was $1.86 (no sales tax) which resulted in a total of $43.84.

Everything was well-packaged and arrived in excellent condition. No complaints about performance whatsoever.


BTW, if the review by an Amazon customer was correct, then Shure has now corrected the wiring diagram.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

Sooo, for the clueless (me) - how exactly are you doing this? I have many LPs, a very good Technics turntable, a very good Kenwood receiver and a computer (obviously). Not sure about the state of the cartridge, but you've already provided info on what to get there. And I guess I'd need some software, such as Goldwave. What else would I need to digitize my records?

It appears that once you get a new cartridge/stylus, you will have everything except the software and maybe the proper cable.

If you don't have a good LP cleaner, be sure to get one. Stanton makes a fine one. Discwasher used to make a good one (the D4), but since Radio Shack took them over, the latest version is cheap junk. BTW, if you get the Stanton. let me know. The instructions are very unclear (as if they were written by a CTer) as to how to orient the brush, etc. After many emails to their techs back and forth, I finally got correct info on what to do.

The cable can be an RCA pair to 1/8" plug, or if your receiver has a headphone jack, a 1/4" plug to a 1/8" plug. The latter plugs into your sound card's "line in" jack.

GoldWave is $45 and well worth it. But if you're on a tight budget you might try Audacity which is freeware. I tried an early version of Audacity a while back and preferred GoldWave. YMMV.

Then learn the software and experiment until you're satisfied with the results. I've found a 44.1 KHz sampling rate works just fine for LPs and gives CD-level results (although the dynamics will be compressed due to the inherent limitations of LPs in that department). If you are blessed with audiophile "golden ears" (those are similar to Uri Geller's "special abilities"), GoldWave will allow you to sample at rates up to 192 KHz.

Best of luck. And remember, every day, vinyl relieves stresses that result in more noise interfering with the signal.

Here's screen shot of GoldWave's starting interface:

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

So my 1970's LP's are feeling pretty carefree by now, eh?

The ones I think I'd like digitized most are the Pousette-Dart Band LP's. I miss listening to those tunes.

Thanks, Mak.

I have a fairly large collection of old tube equipment - including some really old Garrard turntables that run 33 up to 78. Plus a wide variety of unopened styli. I'm still in the process of setting up the rig I'll be using but the rest of the stuff is up for grabs.

Anyway I don't think many people understand how different the sound of an LP through a tube amp is versus a compressed-source transistor-amped experience. It is like night and day - the transistor amps sound like they are under water compared with a tube amp. And vinyl just sounds so much more natural than anything else I've heard. (Well- other than a set of Meridian speakers... but that is a different class of audio)

Anyway good luck.

__________________
---"Why do things have to suck so bad?" a friend once asked me.
"Because space is a vacuum and that's a lot of suck." I replied.
(Actual quote)---

I've got both tube and transistor amps and heard plenty more than I own. Believe me, in the "high-end" area you can get (modern or vintage) tube amps and transistor amps to sound pretty much identical. So as long as the source is OK, you don't NEED tubes to get a good sound, it can be achieved just as well with transistors. It that sense, there is no such thing as "tube sound". Besides, when not talking about distortion such as in guitar amps, the "tube sound" actually mainly is the sound of the output transformers used in tube amps. OTOH, if the source is bad, it will sound bad no matter what amplifier is used on it .

About vinyl vs the rest: in my opinion a proper vinyl setup sound different from other (also proper quality) systems, but not better or worse. Just, different. And not even that different in some cases.

@mak: I think you're doing just great, especially with finding styli that touch areas not yet worn out. If you've got a good 45 table, it may be a better option than a lesser quality 78 table.

If you want good quality 78 at a more or less reasonable price: there is a mod for the Technics SL-1200 mkII to make it run at 78.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

If your vinyl disks sound compressed, might I suggest you look into one of the gates (downward expanders) made dbx, 166, 266 and 1066 in ascending order of price. Of course, like all good equipment, they can be over used to the point of sounding artificial, but used properly they are very transparent

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

In double blind listening tests, any reasonably good quality amplifier is indistinguishable from any other, provided they are not clipping and have sufficient power for the speakers (the ones I saw tested were from a $200 Pioneer to a $12k tube from some specialty manufacturer, all 2 channel power amps driven by a separate preamp). So any claims of a tube amp sounding different from a transistor amp given the same source material are simply not the case. Now, a record will sound different from a CD, though I actually prefer the CD sound (the record has more distortion in it), though it is somewhat ruined with the modern dynamic compression that is so common on CD's.

__________________
WANTED:

Schroedinger's Cat

Dead And Alive

I have often heard affectionados say, tube amps have a "softer sound" whatever that means. It doesn't surprise me that most people can not tell the difference. The human eye can discern millions of colors but I don't think the ear has the same kind of acuity (in the majority of people). For the most part, I personally can not tell the difference between most high-end amplifiers. For me, a lot of the performance flaws are in the speakers, not the amplifiers.

The "softer sound"of tube amps is due to several things:
1) Limited transient velocity. A transistor amp can go from -max to +max much faster than a tube amp (with less overshoot as well).
2) Lower bandwidth. Most tube amps are limited to 20-20kHz or 20-40kHz. Many transistor amp have bandwidth of 0-200kHz or more This is a direct result of #1 above.
3) when a tube distorts, the harmonics are all "even order" which sounds more "musical than the "odd order" harmonics of transistors

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson